Cali Gay Marriage Opinion to be Released Today

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

My Gods say Marriage is for any number of adults who wish to form a union regardless of gender. With Congress being constitutionally prohibited from creating a national religion, my Gods' edicts are equally valid.

That is fine. What part of ban any government reference to the religious term "marriage" don't you understand? Let governments use civil unions and leave marriage to religions where they took it from.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[lawrocket 3]

The SCOTUS has not accepted certiorari on any DOMA cases.

It'll be at least a few years before the SCOTUS moves on something like this. I think that the petitioners in the California cases were deliberate in not attempting to argue federal Constitutional grounds because of the SCOTUS makeup right now. There is a damn good chance that Obama will appoint four new justices to replace Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens (and maybe Kennedy).

Once some of the present court starts retiring or dying, you'll see more challenges. These groups want a favorable makeup of the courts.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,498]

Quote

Quote

My Gods say Marriage is for any number of adults who wish to form a union regardless of gender. With Congress being constitutionally prohibited from creating a national religion, my Gods' edicts are equally valid.

That is fine. What part of ban any government reference to the religious term "marriage" don't you understand? Let governments use civil unions and leave marriage to religions where they took it from.

You seem to be blissfully unaware that in the society whos language we get the word "marriage" from religion and government was inseperable. Can you show me when marriage has ever been seperate from government?

The other very funny part of your argument is that even if you got your way gay people would still get married. After they get their civil union like straight people would, there would be nothing stopping them from getting ceremonially married, like straight people would. Your precious word, which you don't understand the origin of anyway, would still be applied to gay couples in exactly the way you want to prevent, and you wouldn't be able to do a thing about it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>Gays do have the same rights as everyone else. In California, for
>example, they can marry a person of the opposite sex.

By that argument, blacks in Georgia in 1950 had exactly the same rights as everyone else. They could use their own bathrooms (just like whites) go to their very own schools (just like whites) and marry someone who is the same race that they are (just like whites.)

I am glad we've gotten away from that particular bit of bigotry. "Separate but equal" has been discredited pretty thoroughly.

You're comparing apples and carrots. And just as wrong.
The marriage laws in California do not discriminate on any level. Every person is treated the same regardless of race, creed, color, sexual preference, or eye color. Neither you or I can marry a male in California, but any lesbian willing to could.
Separate but equal is still alive. Married people get tax breaks that single people don't as well as other benefits. There is far more bigotry shown towards single people as a group than there is toward gays.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 2,998]

>You're comparing apples and carrots.

No, it's apples and apples.

In Georgia in 1950, blacks had the right to marry other blacks, and whites had the right to marry other whites. They had "exactly the same rights." That was, fortunately, struck down by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional in 1967.

Today, gay men have a right to marry women, just as straight men have a right to marry women. They have "exactly the same rights." This is being struck down in many states, and this will continue, just as the separate-but-equal laws concerning interracial marrages were.

> Every person is treated the same regardless of race, creed, color,
>sexual preference, or eye color.

No, they are not. I am free to marry someone I love, since I am wired to want to marry a woman. My friend Marc is not free to marry the person he loves, since he wants to marry a man. That means they are being treated differently.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

So what percent of the population should it take to pass?

In a Republic, especially a Constitutional Republic, like ours, there should exist a fixed body of law not subject to majority rule. Even if all the citizens, save one, vote to deny the rights of the single remaining citizen, they should not be allowed to do so.

"Majority Rules" sounds good, but in practice, it must be restrained in order to guarantee the rights of the citizens, virtually all of whom will find themselves in the minority on some occasion.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

It is indeed unfortunate when bigotry is deemed constitutional in any state.

So then you agree that anyone that is intolerant of or takes offense to my opinions on marriage is a bigot. After all, that is the definition.

He said nothing of the sort, and what someone thinks of your bigotry (or lack thereof) is not a constitutional matter.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

To elaborate what the DoggieJumper mentioned earlier, (and I have read this proposal in other places):

Marriage as we know it today would be split into two separate parts:
1. A civil union, recognized by gov't which would cover all legal aspects of what we currently call "marriage".
2. A religious ceremony, recognized only by the church chosen by the parties involved.

People wanting the traditional marriage as we know it today, would do both.
People not interested in the religious angle would only do #2 #1.

I'm pretty sure that's what you meant.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>You're comparing apples and carrots.

No, it's apples and apples.

In Georgia in 1950, blacks had the right to marry other blacks, and whites had the right to marry other whites. They had "exactly the same rights." That was, fortunately, struck down by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional in 1967.

Today, gay men have a right to marry women, just as straight men have a right to marry women. They have "exactly the same rights." This is being struck down in many states, and this will continue, just as the separate-but-equal laws concerning interracial marrages were.

> Every person is treated the same regardless of race, creed, color,
>sexual preference, or eye color.

No, they are not. I am free to marry someone I love, since I am wired to want to marry a woman. My friend Marc is not free to marry the person he loves, since he wants to marry a man. That means they are being treated differently.

You are still wrong, Bill.
Everyone can get married. Love is not a condition of marriage. It is very common for people to get married for reasons of convenience with no emotional attachment ever day.
Your friend is free to marry any person he wants as long as that person is female. You and I live by the same laws. Just because your friend isn't happy with the legal definition of marriage doesn't mean it is wrong or needs to be changed. I also have gay friends who are upset that they can't marry their significant other. It just so happens that the main reason most of them want to get married is so they can take advantage of the previously mentioned tax breaks and benefits married people enjoy. Do away with those benefits and the crys about inequality would diminish to a whisper.
People who are truly in love don't need a governments blessing on their choice of a life partner.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bigot Just because someone voted for Prop 8 does not automatically make them a bigot.

Ya know what Mike . . . it kinda does. Prop 8 was extremely mean spirited. Voting for it was a vote for hate and certainly not a very "Christian" thing to do.

Sorry, but the truth hurts sometimes.

I don't think I'd say the majority of California voters are bigots.

Labeling those who disagree with you is easy. Actually discussing things with them is harder, but always more productive.

I think the majority of *people* are bigots, in one way or another, and that includes Californians. However, California (and others) are enacting law to impose that bigotry on their populace, which is somewhat different than a mere "I don't like (gays/blacks/women/men/Jews/etc)".

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Once some of the present court starts retiring or dying, you'll see more challenges. These groups want a favorable makeup of the courts.

On a tangent, approximately what percentage of SCOTUS Justices tend to have opinions different from what was expected by the Presidents that appointed them (i.e. a Justice appointed by a conservative President who surprisingly ends up giving mostly liberal opinions and vice versa)?

I ask because it seems the strategy you mentioned, while being both plausible and probable, could result in biting some of those groups in the ass.

With a few exceptions, I'm of the opinion that anyone who counts on partisanship by the SCOTUS Justices in order to be successful in their case is setting themselves up for failure.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

My Gods say Marriage is for any number of adults who wish to form a union regardless of gender. With Congress being constitutionally prohibited from creating a national religion, my Gods' edicts are equally valid.

That is fine. What part of ban any government reference to the religious term "marriage" don't you understand? Let governments use civil unions and leave marriage to religions where they took it from.

I think this would be an acceptable compromise, far better than the current state of affairs.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 2,998]

>Everyone can get married.

Just as all blacks could get married in 1950 in Georgia.

> You and I live by the same laws. Just because your friend isn't happy with the
>legal definition of marriage doesn't mean it is wrong or needs to be changed.

And in 1950, everyone lived by the same laws. Just because Mildred Jeter couldn't marry Richard Loving, did that mean that laws against interracial marriage were wrong and needed to be changed?

Answer: yes.

>Do away with those benefits and the crys about inequality would diminish to a
>whisper.

No, they wouldn't.

Now, if you disconnected marriage from government completely, then I would agree.

>People who are truly in love don't need a governments blessing on their choice of a
>life partner.

Actually, they do. Imagine being told by a hospital that your partner, someone who you had shared your life with for 30 years, was dying - but you couldn't see them because you weren't immediate family. Or imagine being told that you have no right to pick up your son from school, because the state does not recognize your union with his biological mother.

[jakee 1,498]

Quote

Love is not a condition of marriage.

But it's pretty fucking strongly connected with it.

Quote

It is very common for people to get married for reasons of convenience with no emotional attachment ever day.

But it's many times more common for emotion to have something to do with it.

Quote

Your friend is free to marry any person he wants as long as that person is female. You and I live by the same laws. Just because your friend isn't happy with the legal definition of marriage doesn't mean it is wrong or needs to be changed.

That just come straight back to Bill's extremely relevant comparison with racial limitations on marriage. Just because you're happy with the legakl definition doesn't mean it is right and should stay.

Quote

It just so happens that the main reason most of them want to get married is so they can take advantage of the previously mentioned tax breaks and benefits married people enjoy. Do away with those benefits and the crys about inequality would diminish to a whisper.

But the fact remains that they do exist, and they are denied to gay couples. The same rights do not exist for them.

Quote

People who are truly in love don't need a governments blessing on their choice of a life partner.

And people can choose not to get it, but some people are forced to do without it. Why should they be?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Do away with those benefits and the crys about inequality would diminish to a whisper.

Perhaps. But the odd thing is that I don't see much of an effort being made to do away with those benefits; I just see a huge effort being made to keep same-sex couples from having those benefits.

[nerd137 0]

> Your friend is free to marry any person he wants as long as that person is female.

Oh for fucks sake, are you deliberately *trying* to be obtuse, or are you just so desperate for a justification for your bigtory that you're attempting to shroud it in stupidity? Your argument has no logical merit, and you know it.

The law as it is right now stipulates that individuals can only marry other individuals of opposite gender. The only group of people who would be adversely effected by that is GAYS. Therefore, the law as it currently stands discriminates against GAYS.

Jesus Christ almighty.

[billvon 2,998]

Your one warning. Attack the points of the discussion, not the poster.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

It is indeed unfortunate when bigotry is deemed constitutional in any state.

I'm wondering how long it will be before discrimination against same sex couples is challenged as unConstitutional in federal courts.

But, but, but, Obama and Hillary both said that they don't support gay marriage! How can you complain?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

But, but, but, Obama and Hillary both said that they don't support gay marriage! How can you complain?

I think it's neither support nor non-support.

Officially, whitehouse.gov says Barack Obama "...supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil_rights/ ...

I realize it doesn't mean supporting or opposing, but it suggest tacit support for states to make their own laws permitting gay marriage. Obama certainly isn't standing in the way of states making their own laws for-or-against.

Obama, has been relatively quiet on the gay rights front, but I perceive that as mostly because of toeing the fine line.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>Everyone can get married.

Just as all blacks could get married in 1950 in Georgia.

Race is totally different than an emotional connection. You are again comparing apples to carrots. Or oranges, take your pick.

> You and I live by the same laws. Just because your friend isn't happy with the
>legal definition of marriage doesn't mean it is wrong or needs to be changed.

And in 1950, everyone lived by the same laws. Just because Mildred Jeter couldn't marry Richard Loving, did that mean that laws against interracial marriage were wrong and needed to be changed?

Answer: yes. See above.

>Do away with those benefits and the crys about inequality would diminish to a
>whisper.

No, they wouldn't. Yes, it would.

Now, if you disconnected marriage from government completely, then I would agree.

>People who are truly in love don't need a governments blessing on their choice of a
>life partner.

Actually, they do. Imagine being told by a hospital that your partner, someone who you had shared your life with for 30 years, was dying - but you couldn't see them because you weren't immediate family. Or imagine being told that you have no right to pick up your son from school, because the state does not recognize your union with his biological mother.

All of the situations you mentioned could be easily resolved with a provision for a "civil union". Unfortunately, the gay community is not happy with that and wants to impose their will and their definiton of marriage on the majority who have expressed their desire to retain the definition of marriage as being one man and one woman. Since you are in favor of same-sex marriages, you must also be in favor of brother-sister marriages, mother-son, father-daughter, brother-brother, etc. as long as offspring are not produced. After all, the only thing "wrong" with them is the public perception, right?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Obama and Hillary both said that they don't support gay marriage! How can you complain?

Because I think for myself instead of listening to and parroting politicians.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

approximately what percentage of SCOTUS Justices tend to have opinions different from what was expected by the Presidents that appointed them (i.e. a Justice appointed by a conservative President who surprisingly ends up giving mostly liberal opinions and vice versa)?

It's not infrequent. It's seen somewhat on the court over the last 30 years or so.

Present court - President - General Slant:
Alito - GWB - is viewed as generally conseravtive with some exceptions (i.e., his analysis of legislative history). IN line with expectations.
Roberts - GWB - is generally conseravtive and in line with expectations.
Breyer - Clinton - somewhat liberal, but he's a tough cat to figure out. In line with Clinton's expectations.
Ginsburg - Clinton - generally considered part of the liberal wing. In line with expectations.
Thomas - BHWB - conservative and in line with expectations.
Souter - GHWB - initially conservative but moved over time towards the center and reaching left by the end. Short term in line, long terms not in line with expectations.
Kennedy - Reagan - Swing vote. Generally conservative, but has voted with the left on some doozies.
Scalia - Reagan - conservative. Um, exceeded expectations.
Stevens - Ford - generally considered the most liberal of the judges. Long term not in line with expectations.

Prior judges:
O'Connor - Reagan - swing voter. She generally voted conservative early, but became a moderate. I can't pin her to any real overarching philosophy. Probably met expectations.

Rehnquist - Nixon - pretty conservative. Met expectations.
Blackmun - Nixon - he went way left. Did not meet expectations.
White - JFK - another difficult cat to nail down. He had some conservative social views (abortion) but approved of affirmative action and found in favor of federal government expansion. Critic of substantive due process. Met some expectations.
Brennan - Ike - liberal. Met expectations since Ike mainly appointed him to get Democratic voters in 56. Brennan was a true activist, and I like to say, "Brennan wasn't always wrong."
Powell - Nixon - generally a moderate but freaking right-wing at times. Mostly met expectations.
Burger - Nixon - could teach Sclaia a thing or two about constructionism. Exceeded expectations.
Marshall - Johnson - left who definitely met expectations.
Fortas - Johnson - a liberal who met Johnson's personal expectations of being a mouthpiece. A shame cuz he was a smart dude.

So it looks like, in general, the left hasn't had many disappointments. The right has had a few.

But - with the present court we know what we'll get. There's a better hope of simply taking a chance with a more comfortable court makeup in the future.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

You seem to be blissfully unaware that in the society whos language we get the word "marriage" from religion and government was inseperable. Can you show me when marriage has ever been seperate from government?

Really? Guess again, read THIS. It is a little unknown document called the United States Constitution and Amendments. Oh, then there is this other document called the Declaration of Independence. Now for the question, show me where "marriage" is used?

Quote

Your precious word, which you don't understand the origin of anyway, would still be applied to gay couples in exactly the way you want to prevent, and you wouldn't be able to do a thing about it.

Wrong again. I want it removed from the power of government. That has nothing to do with the religious side of the issue. If it is removed from government then that is exactly what I want.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You are still wrong, Bill.
Everyone can get married.

You thought you were being clever by defining marriage as the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. In 1950, as Bill continues to hammer you on, one had the right to marry someone of the same race (with very fuzzy definitions on race). When the Supreme Court struck that down, they declared the right to marry another person as a basic human right. Note they did not say "another person of the opposite sex."

In the status quo, not only are gays being denied that right, but they're being forced to subsidize the marriages of straights.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Unfortunately, the gay community is not happy with that and wants to impose their will and their definiton of marriage on the majority who have expressed their desire to retain the definition of marriage as being one man and one woman.

Just curious... If the majority eventually decides that same-sex marriage should be allowed, will you be OK with it then?